Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
iWell, orange is not the most demure hue in the color wheel. Probably made the poor little fellers blush.
The orangle safety triangles ruined the plainness of the otherwise all-black carriages. See, Amish folk value being plain like hipsters value being non-mainstream.
The orangle safety triangles ruined the plainness of the otherwise all-black carriages. See, Amish folk value being plain like hipsters value being non-mainstream.
I don't think the Amish, or anyone else, should be forced to wear orange safety vest.
Or wear seat belts or helmets.
This is based on my libertarian beliefs, and I don't like the big daddy government forcing people to be safe.
This is supposed to be the "land of the free," and yet the government is constantly trying to make us so safe that we are hardly free at all. It should be MY decision whether I want to wear a safety belt, and it should be the Amish decision on whether they want to wear the orange vest....
... unless it is a direct hazard to others, in which case I believe the laws would be acceptable.
This is the land of the free. People are free to do as they please, that means they are free to act foolishly.
I've heard this before;
"I think seat belts should be optional, cause stupid people won't wear them and they'll get killed and won't produce any more stupid people."
Makes sarchastic sense, but makes you think too.
If one is not wild about ceratin laws or conditions, one should vote accordingly. Remember what Marcus Garvey said, our rights rest in three boxes; the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box. he was right on the mark.
I don't think the Amish, or anyone else, should be forced to wear orange safety vest.
Or wear seat belts or helmets.
This is based on my libertarian beliefs, and I don't like the big daddy government forcing people to be safe.
This is supposed to be the "land of the free," and yet the government is constantly trying to make us so safe that we are hardly free at all. It should be MY decision whether I want to wear a safety belt, and it should be the Amish decision on whether they want to wear the orange vest....
... unless it is a direct hazard to others, in which case I believe the laws would be acceptable.
That is a question. While I am a lover of liberty, I am obliged to note that people cannot (as yet, anyway, regrettably) be trusted to do what they should for the good of themselves and everyone else. Rather they will fail to act responsibly either out of laziness, selfishness, meanness, sullen rebelliousness, greed, or through traditions of religious separationism (which is what we have a supreme example of with the Amish).
While I tend to agree that people can do whatever the hell they like so long as they don't frighten the horses, if you are going to live in a society, then you can't cherry - pick when it suits you to benefit from society and when you want to tacitly to tell it to go stuff itself.
I have a certain sympathy for the Amish. There is this question though of just how far they can go their own way even in someone else's world. I imagine they could be given a special exemption in their own little enclave of Amishstan where anyone given permission to enter should respect Amish ways, but to amble outside with their trapmobiles and ignore the laws of the land they have entered is wrong, I think on a number of levels.
Minority rights, sure, but majority rules. It is basically wrong to have religious exemptions whether it's driving license photos, selling the pill or bacon, paying taxes, not shooting people who print cartoons you don't like or picking who you will conduct a marriage for and who you won't - all on the basis of your religion's requirements.
If we value personal freedom, then choosing freedom from religion is one to value. If we allow the tail to wag the dog, we are giving in to the immoderate demand for respect taken to the extent of waiving the law for them.
The orange is immodest and draws attention.
That argument just has no validity since their very dress and the buggies themselves draw just as much,indeed more, attention.
The triangles are not required until they are on public roads as a safety issue so they really have no valid argument
That is a question. While I am a lover of liberty, I am obliged to note that people cannot (as yet, anyway, regrettably) be trusted to do what they should for the good of themselves and everyone else. Rather they will fail to act responsibly either out of laziness, selfishness, meanness, sullen rebelliousness, greed, or through traditions of religious separationism (which is what we have a supreme example of with the Amish).
While I tend to agree that people can do whatever the hell they like so long as they don't frighten the horses, if you are going to live in a society, then you can't cherry - pick when it suits you to benefit from society and when you want to tacitly to tell it to go stuff itself.
I have a certain sympathy for the Amish. There is this question though of just how far they can go their own way even in someone else's world. I imagine they could be given a special exemption in their own little enclave of Amishstan where anyone given permission to enter should respect Amish ways, but to amble outside with their trapmobiles and ignore the laws of the land they have entered is wrong, I think on a number of levels.
Minority rights, sure, but majority rules. It is basically wrong to have religious exemptions whether it's driving license photos, selling the pill or bacon, paying taxes, not shooting people who print cartoons you don't like or picking who you will conduct a marriage for and who you won't - all on the basis of your religion's requirements.
If we value personal freedom, then choosing freedom from religion is one to value. If we allow the tail to wag the dog, we are giving in to the immoderate demand for respect taken to the extent of waiving the law for them.
Value your thoughts on that.
To be clear I'm not advocating breaking the law, I'm advocating changing the law. Nor am I for religious exemptions, whichever changes I would make to the law would apply to everyone regardless of their religion.
I value freedom over safety, so long as we are making that decision for ourselves and not for someone else. In this context it would mean people should be allowed to take any risk they choose, so long as they were only risking their lives and not the lives of others. (Even then I am for expanding the limits of the risk we are allowed to take for ourselves AND others.)
Without seeing the safety devices in question I'm not sure whether they were designed for the safety of the Amish or the safety of other drivers. Possible both. If the safety device was designed for the purpose of the people who use it, then I don't think it should be required. If it is desinged for the safety of others, then there is a stronger argument that it should be allowed.
I don't think it is the proper role of government to protect us from ourselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh, +1, Theophane!
